"The best response to offensive speech is more free speech."
-University of Texas Residence Hall Manual

Some countries, such as France, penalize people who blatantly shout racial insults in public places. But in other nations, such as America, Nazis are allowed to spread their antisemitism and the Westboro Baptist Church can stage protests at military funerals. Some regard these actions of free speech to be healthy for a society. Others find offensive statements to be painful for the individuals in the targeted group.

How would you feel if you saw a poster that deliberately insults your race or religion. Would you tear the poster down, or simply ignore the slip of paper on the wall? Should hate speech be censored or allowed? Where do you draw the line?

Censoring "hate speech" is going too far. I wouldn't want to be fined for making a racial joke. Government authorized protests/marches are bullshit; I'm pretty sure anyone who's not involved in it just ignores them anyways. If I saw someone insult religion, I'd be happy, because that's the definition of free speech. You shouldn't get in trouble for insulting such a controversial subject. While insulting race is wrong and mean, people should just grow up and not cry about it. People should stop being so sensitive.

One of the greatest sacrifices of freedom of speech is that everyone gets a say, no matter how wrong or stupid their point is. But...I would not change it. Hate speech today, what tomorrow?

So I say a few words and you get all bent out of shape?

Grow the fuck up.

--

Let people say what they want, no matter how hateful or stupid it is.

Can't say this better myself:

People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
- Soren Kierkegaard

Those who oppose freedom of speech do so until their speech is opposed. Christians might oppose freedom of speech because of atheists trashing their religion, until their freedom to speak against homosexuality is shut down. Atheists might oppose freedom of speech until their freedom to speak against God is shut down. Hate speech laws will always end in tyranny against one group or another, even when made with the best of intentions.

It really depends, its one thing if a guy is saying a racist joke, another thing if someone is trying to get people to act violently. For example, if someone where to make a joke about black people liking KFC, whether the guy was actually racist or not it doesnt matter because a joke is a joke. Now if a guy is going in public telling people to mistreat others, now that should be illegal because what he is really doing is starting a terrorist organization.

Keep in mind there is a HUGE difference between racist jokes and public demonstrations encouraging hatred and prejudice, and nobody with a brain could confuse the two (a working one that is)

Quote

Now if a guy is going in public telling people to mistreat others, now that should be illegal because what he is really doing is starting a terrorist organization.

There's a country where that kind of thing is illegal. You know, where people are prohibited from speaking if it could start a terrorist organization. It's North Korea.

Enjoy your oppression.

Quote from Sacrieur

There's a country where that kind of thing is illegal. You know, where people are prohibited from speaking if it could start a terrorist organization. It's North Korea.

Because the US aisn't the most obsessed country in the world when it comes to terrerists? The US is starting to resemble Soviet Russia with the erosion of your rights, all in the name of fighting terror.

How much 'free speech' do Americans really enjoy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

Quote from Mini Moose 2707

Can't say this better myself:

People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
- Soren Kierkegaard

What does that even mean.

Quote from Jack[RCDF

Christians might oppose freedom of speech because of atheists trashing their religion, until their freedom to speak against homosexuality is shut down.

Neat thought.

Quote from ClansAreForGays

Quote from Mini Moose 2707

Can't say this better myself:

People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
- Soren Kierkegaard

What does that even mean.

People have freedom of thought, yet they don't exercise that freedom by thinking before they speak. At least, that's how I interpret it.

Quote

Quote from Jack[RCDF

Christians might oppose freedom of speech because of atheists trashing their religion, until their freedom to speak against homosexuality is shut down.

Neat thought.

I like how you miss out the next part

Quote from Jack[RCDF

I like how you miss out the next part

Lol Jack find me an atheist that opposes freedom of speech.

Quote from Oh_Man

Quote from Jack[RCDF

I like how you miss out the next part

Lol Jack find me an atheist that opposes freedom of speech.

To be honest it's hard to find anyone who's against freedom of speech, or at least not directly. But I think you'll find that there are plenty of atheists who support anti-hate speech laws, which amounts to opposing freedom of speech.

Not all A's are C's, oh_man.

I guess I'll play Devil's Advocate. I think having 100% free speech would be a bad thing. No consequences for libel, slander, inciting a riot, etc. would not be healthy for a society, because these are propaganda tactics to mislead and deceive the people.

Also, if I may nitpick:

Quote from Sacrieur

So I say a few words and you get all bent out of shape?

Grow the fuck up.

Our population does not consist entirely of grown-ups, and it'd be absurd to suggest a child to grow up in that respect. Children are impressionable, and many of them also go through some form of verbal bullying, which could be argued is just "free speech." Are you suggesting that emotional trauma to a child should go unpunished, and the only action to take is to tell the kid to grow up?

Quote from Sacrieur

Quote

Now if a guy is going in public telling people to mistreat others, now that should be illegal because what he is really doing is starting a terrorist organization.

There's a country where that kind of thing is illegal. You know, where people are prohibited from speaking if it could start a terrorist organization. It's North Korea.

Enjoy your oppression.

That's fallacious reasoning (cherry picking fallacy, perhaps?). You're implying that taking a certain measure to stop terrorist organizations is a bad thing because North Korea does it. The last statement is also implying that by sharing this commonality, we become as oppressive as North Korea (or were you making the slippery slope argument?).

Quote from Oh_Man

Quote from Jack[RCDF

I like how you miss out the next part

Lol Jack find me an atheist that opposes freedom of speech.

Easy. I can find dozens of atheists that want to silence the voices of the Westboro Baptist Church or the Church of Scientology. I can find many that oppose freedom of speech when it begins to cross lines with separation of church and state. I can find those that want to stop hate speech, even. There isn't a magical group of people that all share the same opinions on everything, you know, and atheism's core beliefs don't include a resolute freedom of speech.

All that being said, though, I believe people have the right to state what they truly believe without consequence, permitted that they aren't doing it as a destructive cause to others. I wouldn't necessarily trust the government to draw the line, though.

Quote from rayNimagi

How would you feel if you saw a poster that deliberately insults your race or religion. Would you tear the poster down, or simply ignore the slip of paper on the wall? Should hate speech be censored or allowed? Where do you draw the line?

It depends on what the poster said, what the intent behind it was, and where it was. If it was on my property, you bet I'd take it down. If it was in an area such as my apartment complex, I'd file a complaint with management, as there's a policy against that stuff anyway.

If you take no action to remove it when you legally can, I believe you're indirectly responsible for promoting its message.

Quote from Mini Moose 2707

People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
- Soren Kierkegaard

Actually guys, I think what is being said is that people are sheep, they do what is popular at the time, they say the right words to the right people to make them feel socially acceptable, even though they don't stand back and figure if what they are saying is truly what they believe. It is arguing that we have a lot of resources at our disposal right now to find the information we need to make decisions on where we stand on tactics, but we use it in the wrong ways - or else not at all.

I know, I just knew Jack would have a hard time finding one.

The point I'm making is you get way more theists opposing freedom of speech then you ever do atheists.

Quote from Roy

That's fallacious reasoning (cherry picking fallacy, perhaps?). You're implying that taking a certain measure to stop terrorist organizations is a bad thing because North Korea does it. The last statement is also implying that by sharing this commonality, we become as oppressive as North Korea (or were you making the slippery slope argument?).

Not at all, Mr. Devil's Advocate. There is no conclusion (ergo no fallacy, because it's not an argument). I was merely attempted to point out, succinctly, that the limiting of speech and expression is very inviting for oppression. What better way to deal with dissenters than simply make it illegal to speak out? It all comes back to the safety vs. freedom struggle.

But the real question is safety for you today, safety for whom tomorrow? One of the greatest dangers is stepping aside and siding with arguments like, "If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear." But who watches the watchers? Who keeps their power in check if they decide to abuse it?

It's a very important safeguard against tyranny, preventing the government from overstepping its duty to the people it serves.

---

You argue that too much freedom is a bad thing. Probably true, we wouldn't want military grade weapons falling into just anybody's hands, nor weaponized plutonium.

Government is formed via societal contract, and in our particular society (the USA), there are certain expectations that the people are expected to uphold, namely with the recognition of person rights. All men have the right to freedom of speech, which is recognized as an unalienable and necessary fundamental truth. However, there are also the rights of other people, which must be maintained and others may not disrupt.

By birthing a child, the parents assume a contract as put forth by the government to be responsible for the child's well-being -- this is expected by our society. Physical child abuse is clearly a heinous crime, but what of emotional child abuse, should that fall under freedom of speech?

Having a child is in most cases, voluntary. We have abortion clinics and adoption services should the parent not wish to take responsibility, so it is not as though the parent is being forced -- they have chosen it (ignoring the matter of personal belief making it not a choice: the freedom to worship does not exempt one from the law). The parents have limited rights over the child (legal rights), because they, like the government, have been contracted to look out for the child's well-being and should they be negligent in their duty, are subject to punishment as determined by the state.

The matter changes once the child reaches adulthood as recognized by the government. Full person rights are granted, and the parent is free from the contract. However, there is still the matter of libel and slander.

Libel and slander only deal with falsehoods that affect a person's physical well-being and are factual in nature (including loss of job, etc.).

I'll halt here after making this distinction, because I feel an adult person's emotional well-being should not be protected by the above clause. Whether or not your offended or emotionally hurt from someone's speech isn't their problem, even if your depressed state caused you to lose your job. This is so the limitation on speech is a tangible, objective, and measurable occurrence.

But this brings us to the topic of harassment, and how that differs from the aforementioned. I'll stop for now, before I write a book.

Quote from Oh_Man

I know, I just knew Jack would have a hard time finding one.

The point I'm making is you get way more theists opposing freedom of speech then you ever do atheists.

Probably because there is a vast number of theists compared to atheists. 5-6 billion at LEAST believe in some sort of god or non-provable entity, so yeah, there are more theists who oppose freedom of speech.

Stalin!

I couldn't hold it in any longer.